WASHINGTON, D.C. (Jan. 25, 2013) — U.S. Senator Roy Blunt released the following statement in response to the federal appeals court ruling today that President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he made “recess appointments” last year while the Senate was still in pro forma session:

“The Senate decides when the Senate is in session — not President Obama. By using this recess appointment to circumvent Congress, the president attempted to circumvent the U.S. Senate’s constitutional responsibilities. I’m pleased the court has upheld the separation of powers.”

In September 2012, Blunt joined 41 of his Senate colleagues in filing an amicus brief in a challenge (Noel Canning v. NLRB) to the constitutionality of President Obama’s so-called “recess appointments” to the National Labor Relations Board.

U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt serves as a member of the Senate Committee on Appropriations as well as the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. He currently serves as Ranking Member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies and also serves as co-chair of the Missouri River Working Group along with U.S. Senators Claire McCaskill of Missouri and John Hoeven and Kent Conrad of North Dakota.

By: dwethered on 1/26/13
Did you not notice that it was an appeals court, not the Supreme Court that rendered this opinion which flies in the face of nearly 200 years of legal precedent and practice? Also if allowed to stand when or IF IT IS HEARD by the Supreme Court it would place literally tens of thousands of government actions in jeopardy since this overly broad decision would invalidate presidential appointments going back to the 19th century would make any actions made by such recess appointments - made by both Republicans and Democrats invalid as a result. In fact many members of the Judiciary would be subject to challenge since President George W. Bush used the same tactic to get around blocks placed by Democrats on his judicial nominees, as did President William J. Clinton.

One wonders if perhaps even one or more of the appointments of the two members of the appeals panel that heard this case, appointed by Republican presidents and elevated to the appeals court by Republican presidents might not face removal from the bench for not being a valid nominee under such a sweeping and extreme interpretation of the United States Constitution and rewrite of the powers granted to the President of the United States by the United States Constitution.